MAKING DEMOCRACY EFFICIENT; 
THE ENGINEER’S OPPORTUNITY. 


An Address at the 91st Commencement 
-OF the- 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 

June 13, 1917. 


By Charles Whiting Baker, C.E., 
Consulting Editor, 
“Engineering News-Record.’’ 


Troy, N. Y., 1917. 













MAKING DEMOCRACY EFFICIENT; 
THE ENGINEER’S OPPORTUNITY. 


I count it a high honor to be in this place today. It is an honor for any man to 
have a part in the anniversary exercises of this, the oldest of American engineering 
colleges. It is an honor that I especially appreciate, because it has been my privilege, 
in a quarter century of active professional life to know intimately many of the great 
engineers who have gone out from this Institute. I share with you, therefore, the pride 
you all feel in that splendid body of Alumni who have made the name of Rensselaer 
Polytechnic Institute forever famous in the annals of American Engineering. 

And with honor comes always responsibility. So it is with you, men of the 
graduating class. You have achieved the honor of successfully completing a course 
of professional study, long noted for its difficulty. You have the honor of following 
in the footsteps of men of another generation who achieved great deeds in their pro¬ 
fession. Yours now will be the responsibility of proving yourselves worthy suc¬ 
cessors to these great men, meeting your tasks and opportunities with equal zeal, 
courage and fidelity, and reflecting an equal measure of credit on this your Alma 
Mater. 

The honorable task your President has assigned to me involves also responsibility. 
We are met under conditions such as no American college Commencement season has 
ever witnessed. Many institutions have abandoned their usual celebrations. At 
this hour, when men’s souls are being tried as by fire, our thoughts are concentrated 
on the great task which we as a nation have undertaken. I have no mind to turn 
your thoughts away from that great task today. Rather I would consider with you 
some of the reasons why that task is worth all the sacrifice we may be compelled to 
make. 

What is this task? You all know how President Wilson, in words whose forceful 
eloquence rung around the world, summoned the United States to do battle for the 
preservation of Democracy. That splendid appeal and the mighty power of that 
great ideal put an end to the chaos of conflicting opinion and placid ignorance among 
our people and transformed us, as by magic, into a united nation. 

Democracy! Best defined in the immortal words of Lincoln as government of 
the people, by the people and for the people. It will be a sad day for America when 
her citizens are not willing to defend that great principle. Let us frankly recognize, 
however, that there are many among us who do not believe in democracy. I know 
an eminent American engineer, pro-German in his sympathies, whose father emi¬ 
grated to America from Germany at the time of the unsuccessful German revolution 
of 1848. In a recent conversation with this engineer, I said to him, “Your father 
left Germany to escape that same autocratic government which you now defend.” 
“Yes, that is true,” he said, “but my father was mistaken!” 




There are very few in this country who go so far as that in their defence of 
autocratic government; but there is a very general acceptance of the idea that a 
democratic government is necessarily inefficient. In talking with the president of 
one of our great utility corporations recently, a man whose public spirit and patriotism 
surpass those of almost any man of my acquaintance, we spoke of the chaotic condi¬ 
tions at Washington, and he said, “Of course, we must have a democratic form of 
Government; any other is unthinkable; but we must accept as a matter of course 
that a democracy is necessarily inefficient.” 

One sees this same idea expressed in the public prints almost daily by well-known 
leaders of thought. Dr. Ira N. Hollis, President of the Worcester Polytechnic Insti¬ 
tute and of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, speaking on the subject 
“Democracy and Efficiency” recently, said; 

“Many of us believe that the whole future of Democracy is at 
stake and that unless democracy can develop as high a national 
efficiency as autocracy, it is doomed. That is fundamentally the 
question before the United States today.” 

Whence comes this idea, that democracy is necessarily inefficient and that an 
autocratic government is an efficient government ? Almost without question this idea 
has been formed by contrasting Germany and the United States. Germany, in the 
years before the war at least, gave the world an example of the most efficient gov¬ 
ernment that has ever existed. In the United States, everyone agrees that our 
Govermental machinery is far from efficient. Compare the way the German people 
entered this war, with every part of the whole national mechanism operating like 
clockwork, and the way the United States, slowly, clumsily, like an unwieldy giant, 
is attempting to bring its vast power into operation. 

And yet, notwithstanding this seemingly conclusive proof, I make bold to raise 
the question: Must a democracy necessarily be inefficient? Is an autocratic government 
necessarily an efficient Government? 

Some well intentioned people are trying to defend Democracy with the plea 
that efficiency in Government is a matter of sordid materialism and of little concern 
to the public anyway. No such claim need be made before an audience of engineers. 
You know, as I know, that the public welfare is very closely dependent on the 
efficiency of the government, national, State and municipal. We may, indeed, prefer 
to live under an inefficient democratic government, than under an efficient despotism; 
but to the extent to which we have to confess democracy inefficient, to that extent does 
it fall short of our reasonable expectations. 

That Germany has given, in peace as well as in war, a marvellous illustration 
of efficient government, every candid observer will acknowledge; but it is fair to 
ask whether Germany attained this efficiency in Government because of her auto¬ 
cratic rule, or in spite of it. If the former is the case, then autocratic governments 
elsewhere should have achieved similar good results; but where will you go else¬ 
where than in Germany to find an autocratic government that has achieved efficiency? 
The most notable example of autocratic rule in the world, up to a very recent date 
was that of the unlamented Czar of all the Russias; but no one ever accused his 
Government of being efficient. On the contrary, it was, and always had been, a 
vast corrupt machine, operated for the benefit of the ruling classes. 

And what was true of the late Russian Imperial Government has been true of 
Imperial Governments generally, in so far as they have not been reformed and held 
in check by that great movement toward Democracy which has been the character- 


istic feature of the past century of progress. You would not go to the Sultan of 
Turkey to find how to conduct an efficient government, nor would you have found 
it under the late Dowager Empress of China. 

If you desire still further proof, turn back the pages of history. Read there the 
story of the misrule and corruption and tyranny and shame and injustice that have 
been the lot of the common people at the hands of kings and emperors and potentates 
ever since the dawn of history. It was the beginning of the end when, in this new 
land of America, hardly a hundred and forty years ago. Democracy achieved its 
first great victory. Read that story of age-long oppression, and realize that the 
cause of Democracy is a cause worthy the best that we can give. 

And if we turn back to Germany and inquire the reason for her efficiency in 
Government, you will not find the controlling reason to be her autocratic rule. 
Contrast the Germany of three years ago, with its prosperous self-governing cities, 
its splendid system of works for public welfare, for the relief of the sick, the aged, 
and the homeless, for guarding the life and health of the people,—contrast, I say, 
that modern Germany with the Germany of seventy years ago. The Germany of 
that day had autocratic rule of a sort that drove away the best and bravest of her 
citizens to find in the United States more favorable conditions than their fatherland 
afforded. In the light of that contrast, is it not clear that what has made modern 
Germany great is not her military despotism, that has survived from the days when 
her robber barons ruled the Rhine, but her partial adoption of democratic institutions? 

Let me emphasize that word partial. There is one test of efficiency that the 
Imperial German Government has never been ready to accept. Can we call a 
government efficient unless it satisfies its people? In spite of prisons and police, 
the Social Democratic party in Germany comprised before the war a large part of 
the German people. Had these freedom-loving Germans possessed the essential 
privileges of Democracy,—free speech, a free press, and a free franchise, there would 
have been an end of autocratic rule in Germany long ago, and a world calamity 
would have been averted. 

I have called the German Government an efficient government. I wish to 
qualify that statement. The measure of efficiency in an enterprise is the final total 
result. The autocratic Government of Germany has been marvellously efficient,—up 
to a certain point. Its achievements in the development of science and art and in¬ 
dustry are deserving of all praise. 

But all the world now knows that the Government of Germany has been guided 
in all its actions by one dominant motive,—creating a military supremacy that would 
enable it to conquer the world. In the prosecution of that vainglorious enterprise 
it has spread death and ruin all over the earth, of a magnitude beyond the possibility 
of words to express or the mind to understand. 

And only an autocratic government would ever have been guilty of so vast a 
crime. Measured by this final result, we may well brand the Imperial German 
Government as the most inefficient that history records. 

And now what of the other aspect of our question? Must a democratic form of 
Government necessarily be an inefficient government? I grant you that our own 
government falls short of efficiency in many ways; but are its defects incapable of 
remedy? Who has the assurance to declare that we have come to an end of all 
progress in the evolution of popular government? How young it is in the age-long 
course of history, this new art of enabling peoples to govern themselves! 


Our ancestors who founded this nation wrought nobly in their day; but they 
lived in a world as different from the present day world as the stone age differed 
from the age of Greek culture. It was our resposibility to build upon the sound 
foundation they laid a superstructure suited to present-day needs. Only in part have 
we discharged this duty. Too long have we assumed that the liberty won by our 
forefathers was ours to enjoy for all time, without further effort on our part. We 
as a people have been content to complain at inefficiency in our govenment, instead 
of earnestly taking hold to root out the causes that make for inefficiency. 

Nevertheless, we have made progress. There is no more encouraging record to 
the believer in popular government than the record of the evolution which the past 
forty years has seen in the government of American cities. Go back two-score years 
and we find ourselves at the era when Boss Tweed ruled America’s metropolis. 
His government was only too typical of that which then prevailed in the average 
American city. No one would claim that American city governments of today are 
perfect; but they are like day unto night compared with the conditions in American 
cities of the 70’s. And this great reform has been effected by radical changes in 
governmental machinery, as well as by an awakened sense of civic responsibility 
among the voters. 

Since it has been found possible in two-score years to make revolutionary im¬ 
provement in our city governments, why may we not look hopefully to the future for 
like improvement in our county and State and federal governments? 

There are certain well-meaning patriots who cry out against any proposal to 
radically alter our government machinery, and who seem to think the plans of gov¬ 
ernment devised by the founders of this nation, are necessarily the best for all time. 
It is just such inertia as this that is largely responsible for the inefficiency of our 
government. I venture the assertion that you might send to Washington to hold all 
the responsible positions there, a selected colony of archangels, or, if you prefer, a 
group of the most capable business men that could be found, and they would be 
unable to make any very great improvement, so long as they had to work under pres¬ 
ent laws and customs. 

Do not misunderstand me and think that I have in mind the adoption of any 
particular ism or panacea or Governmental plan. What I urge is that it is time we 
gave to the science of government under present-day conditions, the same thorough 
study that an engineer might give to the art of machine design, and that we should 
not hesitate to apply the teachings of science for the benefit of mankind any more 
in the one case than in the other. 

It is a fact not yet understood by the public, and not realized even by many mem¬ 
bers of the engineering profession, that it has fallen to the lot of engineers to do 
more for the study and development of the science of organization than the men 
of any other profession. ’ And the science of organization is the most essential part 
of the science of government. In that evolution for the betterment of city govern¬ 
ments to which I have referred, it is the engineer who has been the most active 
factor, especially in recent years, in the evolution of the City Manager plan of 
government which is finding rapid adoption in all parts of the country. 

It is impossible, of course, within the brief time allotted me to discuss specific 
reforms in governmental methods. I may only mention one or two by way of illus¬ 
tration. 


A 


The engineer who is familiar with the art of organization knows that the effi¬ 
ciency of an industrial or commercial concern is very closely measured by its ability 
to get things done. Our government is carrying on industrial and commercial opera¬ 
tions even in times of peace, greater than those of the largest private concern, but 
our governmental machinery is designed with the primary object of preventing things 
being done improperly. This condition dates back to our earliest history. When our 
scheme of government was formed, the current maxim was, “that Government is 
best which governs least.” The framers of the Constitution had no thought that 
efficiency in Governmental work was of any importance. They had no foresight of an 
era when the Government would be obliged to undertake work touching closely the 
daily life of every citizen. It is no detraction from their fame to say that the gov¬ 
ernmental machinery and methods which they devised are ill-adapted to the necessi¬ 
ties of the Twentieth Century. 

Again, every engineer knows that efficiency in an organization can be created only 
by a certain degree of permanence in its personnel and policy. The concern whost 
active responsible'! management is continually changing is not a concern that can long 
survive in competition. But this simple elementary principle of efficiency in organiza¬ 
tion is ignored when it comes to governmental affairs. The rank and file are pro¬ 
tected, indeed, by civil service laws; but the public has not the faintest idea, ap¬ 
parently, that experience is of great value in carrying on Government business as 
well as private business. You need do nothing more to destroy the efficiency of the 
German Governmental machine than to adopt in that country the American plan 
of “rotation in office.” Just throw out the men in responsible positions every two or 
three years, so that a new set of office-seekers may have their turn at the public crib! 

But this is no place to discuss detail plans for governmental reforms. Tht 
thought I would leave with you is that the inefficiency in our democratic government, 
which we all deplore, is due to well-know causes, which it is our duty to remove. 
We owe this duty not only to ourselves and our posterity, but to all the world. The 
people of all nations are now looking to us for guidance. Do you realize that that 
note of President Wilson’s to Russia is shaping the Governmental policies of the 
entire world? 

Those great men who formed this nation kindled a torch of liberty that has in¬ 
spired the downtrodden and oppressed in all lands to break their chains and live 
the life of free men. Our patriot forefathers founded this great Democracy; and 
it is our duty to demonstrate to the world that a democracy can be efficient. German 5 
challenges us to mortal combat, and contemptuously declares that our democratic 
government is too inefficient to survive. Surely this challenge will awaken us from 
our lethargy. Let us demonstrate to all the world first that our democracy can be 
efficient in war, and then that it can be efficient in peace. 

Who finds in that task any cause for doubt or discouragement? Can you picture 
the contrast between our battle for democracy today and the battle waged by our 
patriot forefathers? Stand by that monument at Concord bridge, and think of the 
courage of that band of Massachusetts farmers who on an April morning in 177S 
dared to stand and defy the soldiers of a King. 

The soldiers of a King! It is impossible for us at the present day to realize 
what that phrase meant at that time, less than a century and a half ago. What 
madness it was then to defy a King! How many thousands and millions had at¬ 
tempted it all down the course of history, and how invariably had they paid the 



\%Tr\‘ 


3 


penalty with death and torture worse than death, 
few dreamers here and there had dared to talk of 
selves; but that was only a dream that might new 


fTincrc fVi 


1 ^ 


LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



A 

(n- 


Think of the sublime courage of that heroic g Q QO'? "j i Q 700 ^ rd, 

and ask yourselves whether we need any courage to \ wfe I I w ^ 

ocracy. This nation of a hundred million people, the most powerful by far on the 
face of the globe; fighting for eternal principles of right and justice; fighting for 
Democracy in a world where democracy is accepted by every people on earth save 
those that fight against us. We shall show to all the world democracy victorious 
and we must show it also how a democracy can be efficient. That task is indeed a 
task in which all good citizens should join, but to the engineer there comes the op¬ 
portunity for leadership in this great work. 


It is the engineer as an executive who has led the way in creating efficiency in 
the conduct of the great corporations who are doing a great part of the world’s work. 
By the application of the same scientific principles and business sense, great reforms 
can be effected in our governmental operations. 

At this very time, leaders of the profession are doing splendid work to aid out 
Government in meeting the present crisis. We may well be proud today of Hoover 
and Goethals and Rousseau at Washington, of Parsons in France, of Stevens in 
Russia, and of hundreds of others of our profession who are organizing the great 
f<irces that will make the future of Democracy sure. 






